The Supreme Court will take up California's ban on same-sex marriage, a case that could give the justices the chance to rule on whether gay Americans have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals.

I fully expect that the POTUS will declare both DOMA and prop 8 unconstitutional and that homosexual marriage will be the law of the land with all states forced to recognize homosexual marriage as equal to heterosexual marriage

this will also make same sex spouses eligible for benefits of federally employed spouses...including the military

ladies and gentleman the financial benefits have been the goal all along

7
posted on 12/07/2012 12:40:54 PM PST
by longfellowsmuse
(last of the living nomads)

Well, at least we’ll have the gay issues put to bed, so to speak. We’ll know if the people actually have the right to decide what laws they will live under or if the law will be what the aristocrats and oligarchs decide it will be and nothing else, the people’s opinons as expressed through referenda or their legislatures notwithstanding.

I wouldn’t be shocked at all if they pass fruitcake marriage and make it legal. Nothing the Supreme Court does surprises me anymore. After Roberts showed what a douche bag he is nothing they do would shock me

I fully expect that the POTUS will declare both DOMA and prop 8 unconstitutional and that homosexual marriage will be the law of the land with all states forced to recognize homosexual marriage as equal to heterosexual marriage

Oh, he'll go much further than that. He'll have the "Justice" department sue companies for discrimination if they don't hire "enough" gay people.

I fully expect that the POTUS will declare both DOMA and prop 8 unconstitutional and that homosexual marriage will be the law of the land with all states forced to recognize homosexual marriage as equal to heterosexual marriage

Sadly, I fear the you're correct. I'm expecting a 'Roe v Wade' style decision inventing a constitutional right to homosexual marriage. It'll be the law of the land 'whether you like it or not,' as Gavin Newsom once said. I have faith in only three Justices to stand in opposition: Scalia, Thomas and Alito. It's possible Kennedy or Roberts will join, but I have zero confidence that we'll get both of 'em.

I fully expect that the POTUS will declare both DOMA and prop 8 unconstitutional and that homosexual marriage will be the law of the land with all states forced to recognize homosexual marriage as equal to heterosexual marriage

My prediction: (1) Proposition 8 will be upheld, 5-4, with both Roberts and Kennedy in the majority (i.e., no constitutional right to gay marriage), but (2) DOMA will be held unconstitutional, also by a 5-4 vote (Kennedy in the majority, Roberts dissenting) on the ground that the federal government must recognize as legally married any couple who are legally married under the laws of their home state. Kennedy will justify his switch by saying the DOMA case presents a states-rights issue.

But another large part of it is the further destruction of traditional American and Judeo-Christian morality.

The statists hate religion and especially Christianity.

In this, many of the homosexuals are the pawns of the hardcore statists that are using the homosexual ‘cause’ to further the destruction of America. Some are aware, some are not.

Regardless, the issue is another bullet in the chest of America.

If this passes, polygamists will have a case. So will males who want to marry male cousins and brothers, and females who want to female cousins and sisters.

Remember that their argument is flawed. Before same-sex marriage, we ALL lived with the same restrictions when it came to marriage. Heterosexuals could only marry people of the opposite sex and who were legally able and consented.

Homosexuals have not been barred from marriage and they were under the same ‘rights’ and ‘restrictions’ as everyone else.

Now they are asking for EXTRA rights. In addition to being able to marry members of the opposite sex, they want to be able to marry people of the same sex.

They claim this will not cause a slippery slope.

But if there are no restrictions on marriage, then there are NO restrictions on marriage.

The homosexuals want the finances, yes, but they approach homosexual ‘rights’ the same way Obammie the Commie approaches the economy: they both want to punish the living hell out of their opponents. Winning is not enough. They want to bash our heads into the sidewalk like the drug-dealing gang-baning punk Trayvon did to Zimmerman.

I see nothing in the previous jurisprudence that shows this will be anything other than a 5-4 vote overturning the lower courts and upholding the laws. Roberts/Scalia/Thomas/Kennedy/Alito will stick together on this one. The four others will too but will be in the minority — for now.

But that still wouldn't force other states to recognize faggot "marriages" performed in faggot states.

No, but we will then see later cases arguing that the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause requires each state to recognize marriages performed in another state.

I don't practice family law, and I haven't researched this, but I am sure there is caselaw from back in the day when interracial marriages were illegal in some states and legal in others. I do remember learning in law school a legal maxim, "A marriage valid where celebrated is valid everywhere."

No, but we will then see later cases arguing that the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause requires each state to recognize marriages performed in another state. I don't practice family law, and I haven't researched this, but I am sure there is caselaw from back in the day when interracial marriages were illegal in some states and legal in others. I do remember learning in law school a legal maxim, "A marriage valid where celebrated is valid everywhere." I'm surprised that issue hasn't already come up in front of the SCOTUS, being as quite a few states have had same-sex marriage for awhile now. For instance, let's say Judy and Susie get married next week up in Seattle, and then they move to Missouri. Someone in MO says, "We don't recognize you as legally married", and J & S have their Washington State Marriage Certificate. J & S say, "Full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution." Of course, inevitably, it will come up, most likely in the next five years at the latest.

36
posted on 12/07/2012 1:30:57 PM PST
by AnAmericanAbroad
(It's all bread and circuses for the future prey of the Morlocks.)

There are many arguments that can be made about this issue, but for me the biggest one is that it impinges upon the First Amendment rights of free exercise of religion. If gay marriage is found constitutional that how can any pastor of any church refuse to marry gays or hold gay marriages in their churches? The same would be true of any religious person who has a bakery or a photography business, etc. They will be accused of discrimination and this will open the door to all kinds of lawsuits. The right to object to being forced to do something based on the exercise of individual conscience will be gone. And even if it survives, the amount of money it will take these people to defend themselves will put them out of business. Can you imagine how the Moslems will react to this kind of thing?

37
posted on 12/07/2012 1:33:28 PM PST
by CityCenter
(Compromise is the welcome mat to deception.)

I think you’ve got it right. Your analysis was my first impression when I heard the news.

If it does result in states’ rights being upheld, what then happens with Article 4, Section 1- Full Faith & Credit?

Suppose that gay marriage is legal in MA but not in TX and that a company is incorporated in TX and doing business in both states. Do legally married gay couples receive benefits in MA but not in TX?

Louisiana does not allow gay couples to adopt. Yet a couple of years ago, the courts forced LA to amend the birth parents’ names on its vital record to reflect the legal adoption that took place in NY. (IMHO, NY should have had to issue a birth certificate. LA should not have to amend its vital records to reflect an adoption that is illegal in LA.) How do you see that situation playing out under the predicted ruling?

40
posted on 12/07/2012 1:40:28 PM PST
by BuckeyeTexan
(There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)

There are many arguments that can be made about this issue, but for me the biggest one is that it impinges upon the First Amendment rights of free exercise of religion. If gay marriage is found constitutional that how can any pastor of any church refuse to marry gays or hold gay marriages in their churches?

That will never happen, even if SCOTUS holds there is a constitutional right to gay marriage. No case has ever required a Catholic priest to marry someone who has a civil divorce but not a church annulment. No case has ever required an orthodox Rabbi to marry a Jew and a non-Jew. If there is a right to gay marriage, it is a right to a civil marriage and to a marriage in any church willing to do it.

The same would be true of any religious person who has a bakery or a photography business, etc. They will be accused of discrimination and this will open the door to all kinds of lawsuits.

That is a different issue. A few states have already had lawsuits on that basis, where state civil rights laws forbid discrimination against gays in "public accommodations." I think those cases are wrong, but your fear is much more likely to materialize there.

Well looks like all states will have to follow the upcoming Supreme Court ruling so I think gay couples and straight couples should be granted civil union licenses. If a civil union doesn’t work out, then the state can dissolve it. Marriage, however, should belong to the realm of the Church. That way, we can still defend marriage.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.